Hall of Fame Voting

I wonder how many more players we might have elected if not for the 10-player maximum. I know that I originally had 14 players on my ballot and I struggled to decide which four (out of six) I would leave off. I went with Palmeiro and McGwire, but I very easily could have gone Lofton, Schilling, Walker or Sosa. I bet I wasn't alone.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge the best players during their era (ped or not). I'm really disappointed in the early numbers from the baseball writers. Maybe its time for everyone to take a closer look at the criteria for those who get a vote in this process.

I'd be happy with that result

We will all have our pet projects. Mine is Edgar Martinez. In my view, he is to the DH what Mariano Rivera is to closers. Both roles are relatively new, albeit the DH is now 40 years old, and in both cases there are legitimate arguments over the relative value of the role compared to position players and starting pitchers respectively.

Like Mariano, Edgar is the greatest at his role in the history of the game. Perhaps an argument can be made for David Ortiz as comparable, but I think Edgar has the edge. No need to review his stats. Whether seen as raw data or in comparison to his peers, his offense was elite.

There are players in the HOF based primarily on their defense. There are many players in based almost exclusively on their offense, in some cases where their contributions are actually diminished because of poor defense and/or base running. It makes no sense to penalize a player who provides little to no defensive value when we honor those with negative value. I do think the offensive ceiling for a DH to qualify has to be higher than that of a position player, but Edgar crashes through that ceiling.

Imagine picking a starting lineup for the greatest team of all time, only using players who filled the role in real life.

C: Bench (Berra?)
1B: Gehrig (Pujols?)
2B: Morgan (Hornsby? Collins?)
3B: Schmidt
SS: Wagner
LF: Williams (Bonds?)
CF: Mays
RF: Ruth
DH: Martinez
RHSP: Johnson (Clemens? Seaver? Maddux? Pedro?)
LHSP: Grove (Johnson?)
CL: Rivera

See the point? Of the 12 players, he is one of just 6 about whom there could be no debate.

I don't think he was as great a player as any of those because either they were dramatically better hitters (Ruth) or they added significant defensive value to their game (Schmidt). And I also do not like to compare players to less qualified HOFers like Rice or Hafey.

But I think most people accept that McCovey, Stargell, Killebrew and Reggie Jackson definitely belong in the HOF, and none were good defensively. Compare Edgar's offensive numbers to theirs and I think it clear he fits in very neatly with them.

I must say I am suprised by the near-unanimity on Bonds, Clemens, etc. How often do you see 93.9% agreement on any baseball-related debate, much less one as difficult as allowing PED users in the HOF? Apparently, there is no controversy here after all, at least not among statistically-oriented fans & writers.

Jack Morris will not be pleased. Although I bet other than Tigers fans (and maybe Twins fans) and some writers who happen to think he was the best pitcher of all pitchers who pitched exactly between the years 1980 and 1989, most other baseball fans can live with that.

Research is defined as "the systematic investigation and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions" (Merriam Webster). Propaganda is defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular political cause or point of view" (Merriam Webster). The book "Game of Shadows" contains more propaganda than research.

Usually ESPN posts a webpage before the results saying who among their staff voted for who but this year they didn't.

I have almost, almost, gotten to the point where I don't give a flying **** if a pro athlete wants to juice or not. If they want to shorten their lifespan, shrink their testacles, have back acne, all for the sake of running faster, hitting the ball higher, tackling harder, who cares? Let's just turn them all into freak shows and see what happens.

Interesting that Mr. Evans, BP's resident former GM has selected only four to nominate to the Hall. Speaks volumes.

I'm also curious about Curt Schilling....Nearly the same WAR as Bagwell - only better.

I think there is a HUGE ripple effect. If, as I hear it nobody gets in, next year we still can only have 10 votes by the electorate. Those who become elligible now dilute the votes even more. The note worthy players that some see not vote worthy (i.e. the DH and Closers) get even fewer votes because "I can only vote for 10". Those who could get voted in ( as a normal year easy in vote) don't because of the variety of "I can vote for only 10" creates a huge number of possibilities. This ripple, I predict will get worse and worse, till the point that is dumped on the oversight committee.

Sandy Alomar, Jr?

Cleary this HoF round brings the PEDs issue to the forefront, there's no avoiding that. But everybody seems to be looking for a golden rule regarding PEDs and I don't think there's one to be found. How about applying some judgment to this question?

I don't think somebody who succeeded through cheating alone should be enshrined as a baseball "great." But a lot of guys enhanced their indisputable skills in various unethical ways, whether by corking their bats, doctoring the ball, doping, etc. You can't keep them all out.

My problem with Bonds has always been his post-1999 performance. Until then, he was a legitimate Hall of Famer displaying a normal aging curve. Then, for the next eight years, he defied the aging curve that subdued all of his great predecessors. Not Mays, not Mantle, not Ruth, not Aaron, not Musial, not even Williams had the kick that Bonds had after the age of 35. And that at the very time there is strong evidence that he began using PEDs. I just find it hard to believe his unique late-career accomplishments were entirely natural and within the rules. (Same applies to Clemens.)

So based on strong but circumstantial evidence, I'd recognize that guys like Bonds and Clemens earned entrance to the Hall on their natural abilities and professional skill, but I wouldn't reward or revere them for cheating, or accept their accomplishments as 100% legitimate. They wouldn't be on my ballot the first year (or the first 10). Let them wait awhile.

I think that the overall order is pretty much right, but I might put Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, or possibly Tim Raines ahead of Bagwell. It's awfully close though. On another note, I know that you can only put ten guys on your ballot, but it looks to me like there are thirteen candidates that are VERY EASILY deserving of enshrinement.

I think no one will get in this year. The voters not voting for PED users will deny Bonds/Clemens and others like Biggio etc probably aren't famous enough for the casual BBWAA voter to even remember.

2014 will be real interesting too with a lot of good players who were not attached to PEDs (Thomas, Maddux, Glavine) etc. up for election with a lot of holdovers gumming up the ballot.

This article demonstrates the reason why the BBWA won't include all writers from Baseball Prospectus in their organization.

Too many intelligent people.

If nobody gets in, the BBWAA ought to be ashamed of its collective selves. The first 10 players on this list deserve enshrinement and everybody else on this list deserves serious debate. If they only took a few, so be it. But we are watching a complete travesty of the voters take "none of the above" out of this group of candidates.

While we're on the subject of PEDs, I find it interesting how McGwire has lingered around while Canseco was pretty quickly blackballed from the voting.

I'm extremely angry at the baseball writers. Craig Biggio a player with over 3000 hits is not a first ballot HOF. I guarantee you if he played for the Yankees, Mets, or Cubs he would be in. Everybody would be talking how great he was. This is a sad day for baseball. How dare they.

The vast majority of individuals inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame are from Major League Baseball. And MLB, first and foremost, is a for-profit form of entertainment. We watch the games, analyze the results and study it because it entertains us and for some, provides income. In the end, I fail to see why we should celebrate the performances of those who highly profited from or were possibly exploited by this profession. We should recognize that what counts here is entertainment.

However, there is one important aspect to this year's slate of candidates that provides a serious benefit to society: it provides a wonderful example of the misuse of evidence based analysis, i.e., that which we deem the difference between science and the non-sciences. The arguments both for, but usually in opposition to those who are suspected of using "performance enhancing drugs" (the quotes are important) provide ample examples of HNTDS - how NOT to do science. Most examples of HNTDS are in the form of single-data point correlation equals cause, and "it is obvious", but some of the better ones are effect-is-entirely-due-to-one-source.

In the field of science education, we have often spent most of our time educating students on techniques, such as how to pipette, draw force diagrams, etc., and little time on helping them understand what science is and how to conduct it properly. One reason is that easy to access examples are not plentiful. But this year, and particularly this year, we have rich source of examples of where people with absolutely no understanding of biomechanics, physiology and/or pharmacology are spouting on about both one time legal and illegal synthetic and natural fluids which they claim are the source or not the source for a few events that are overly celebrated.

So thank you to this year's candidates to the HoF and those who have written about it. You have made an important contribution to the field of education and science - two areas we should be discussing and celebrating. (Of course while we entertain ourselves with a for-profit profession.)

The tragedy with bonds is he was such a brilliant player he didn't need to do it.

Results show significant levels of sabermetrician group think.

Thankfully, PEDs did not (and could not) ruin baseball.
Unfortunately, PEDs absolutely destroyed baseball journalism. Thank God for internet baseball analysis - filling the void left by grandstanding baseball journalists since 1997.

The Apologist's Bible ... where do you fall?


1. Steroids have no effect upon perfromance.

2. The effect of steroids can't be quantified.

3. Even if the effect of steroids could be quantified on an individual basis, there is no way to quantify the effect across MLB.

4. Even if we could quantify the effect across MLB, the numbers of users is so small that its not worth worrying about.

5. Even if the numbers of users was large enough to make a difference, both pitchers and hitters were users, so the effect is a wash to the game.

6. Even if steroids did have an effect on the game, isn't it better for the game if we just turn the page and move on?

7. Who Cares?

The Witchhunter's Bible.... where do you fall?

1. Steriods are the only effect upon performance.

2. The effect of steriods can be quantified.... by me. (just don't ask to see the math)

3. Player X has big muscles, so he used steroids.

4. Player Y has a acne, so he used steroids.

5. Player Z had an outlier year, so he used steriods.

6. Player Q never tested positive, was never implicated in any report, was never brought before a jury or panel of any kind. His numbers are outstanding. But Mr. Writer knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who thinks he might've juiced. And that's good enough for me.

Wow, what a smoking gun you've found.

Ok, that's enough please everyone. I don't mind if we discuss our view points and disagree. Everyone knows by now that I disagree with most everything that went on today. But, let's not make this a public attack forum. I made the mistake of thinking the discussion on twitter was a general stance on ideology. I WAS WRONG not to notice it was started by being directed at Andrews. That's on me, and I take responsibility for missing that. Had I caught that originally, I would not have responded, AND I would have shut down the thread. We all have a lot of ideas. Today was a passionate day. But let's try to show our passion with respect. It's not going to do any good to take our frustrations out on anyone else. Please show some sanity as a community.

It's been a very long day, but if you want to discuss this with me further, you can always email me at jhamrahi at baseballprospectus.com. I'll be happy to continue the dialogue.

I'd like to echo Joe's comments and add my apologies. I went a bit too far after getting caught up in the moment trying to crack wise and didn't consider David's (andrews' first name) feelings in light of such jokes. I'm sorry for adding to the devolution of this convo thread.

I just read 90+ "new" comments that were nothing but whining. :-